Re: GAK & RSA

[tcmay@netcom.com (Timothy C. May)]

Paul Robichaux writes:


> RSADSI has been adamantly opposed to Clipper. You'd expect them to be
> opposed on business grounds; after all, Clipper wouldn't bring them
> any revenue and could quite possibly put them out of business if other
> forms of encryption were outlawed. I don't remember seeing many
> specific comments indicating that RSA was opposed to GAK on
> philosophical grounds (well, OK; some quotes on their "Sink Clipper"
> poster, if those count).

I communicated with Jim Bidzos about this, asking him what he'd heard
about the Karlsruhe/Walker-Belenson proposal--he said he'd gotten no
wind of it, thinking it to be just another academic paper. Later
messages indicated he was taking it more seriously.

As to RSADSI's objections or approvals, I can't say. They are a
_company_, planning to (someday??) turn a profit for their investors
(Note: Alan Alcorn, the inventor of "Pong," invested in them in the
early or mid-80s, and says he's not seen a dime come back, nor has the
company gone public). That is, RSADSI is not run along Cypherpunkesque
lines, but you all knew that.

> Putting the cypherpunkesque arguments about how GAK is a big step down
> the path towards a surveillance state, is it possible that the
> software GAK (SGAK) scheme could easily incorporate RSA's technology?

My understanding is that the Walker-Belenson algorithm is quite strong
as it is. I tried to ftp to ftp.tis.com, and succeeded, but could not
find the Karlruhe paper(s) there, yet. If someone knows where they are
(Carl?) or otherwise gets ahold of them, they might be useful
additions to our own archives. Or a pointer, at least.

> thus use RSA without any problem. The "Skipjack, DSS, and SHA may be
> weak" crowd can't object to RSA's strength, and of course RSADSI will be
> in no position to object.

I think 95% of the opposition to Clipper came from two sources:

1. General opposition to the principle of "escrowed encryption"

2. Disinterest/opposition to the idea of buying special hardware.

I don't see the "Skipjack is weak" argument as ever having been
persuasive. Hence, I don't see the following as too big a concern:

> _This_ is what's scaring me. If Microsoft, Apple, et al offer weak
> encryption as part of SGAK, objections can be made to the weakness. If
> they use RSA, that avenue is gone.

What scares me is the incorporation of the SKE or GAK into products.
Not that RSA may offer an even stronger system.

It's the principle.

--Tim May




-- 
..........................................................................
Timothy C. May         | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,  
tcmay@netcom.com       | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
408-688-5409           | knowledge, reputations, information markets, 
W.A.S.T.E.: Aptos, CA  | black markets, collapse of governments.
Higher Power: 2^859433 | Public Key: PGP and MailSafe available.
"National borders are just speed bumps on the information superhighway."